Conceptualising social and communication vulnerabilities among detainees in the criminal justice system.

Woodbury-Smith (2020) looked at why more prisoners now carry an autism label. The paper claims the jump comes from re-labeling, not from more people actually having autism.

It is a think-piece, not a data study. The author warns that everyday social problems are being called autism inside the justice system.

The main point: many inmates called "autistic" may simply show extreme but sub-clinical traits. Giving them the diagnosis can push staff to treat normal prison behavior as a symptom.

Marc says this drift wastes resources and can hurt the prisoner.

Gillberg et al. (2014) said the same thing years earlier for kids: we often call mixed conditions "autism plus" instead of naming each problem. Marc moves that idea into jails and prisons.

Bertelli et al. (2025) widen the warning to everyone. They show checklists now flag shy or quirky adults as "on the spectrum," backing Marc’s prison claim with a broader lens.

Helverschou et al. (2018) interviewed nine autistic offenders. Their stories line up with Marc: odd but harmless actions get read as suspicious and then criminal. The lived experience supports the theory.

Shea et al. (2021) take Marc’s point and build a roadmap. They use the Sequential Intercept Model to plot where better screening and staff training could stop the label-and-jail cycle.

If you write reports for court or probation, pause before adding ASD to the file. Ask: do these behaviors meet full criteria, or are they better explained by trauma, ADHD, or simple social awkwardness? A tighter label keeps supports targeted, saves funding, and avoids giving the court a wrong story about risk.